By: RootSource Media Staff,
While Dr. Kevin Sabet continues to frame hemp derived cannabinoids as a public health crisis in his latest Newsweek op-ed, RootSource Media believes that the national conversation deserves a wider range of scientific and industry perspectives. His article, which can be read here, celebrates the hemp ban language inserted into the government funding bill that reopened the federal government in mid-November.
This response was originally prepared after it appeared that Newsweek would not be publishing a counter argument. Since then, Newsweek has reopened the discussion and may publish an edited version. Regardless of where it appears, this analysis is important for the public record. The hemp ban was added to a must-pass government funding bill at the final hour, without hearings, without stakeholder input, and without giving lawmakers the ability to vote on the hemp provision separately. Policy made this way undermines transparency and limits the democratic process.
The one constructive aspect of the language is that it finally recognizes true fiber and grain hemp as a standalone commodity category. The industry has asked Congress to acknowledge this distinction for years. However, that positive step does not excuse the manner in which the policy was delivered, nor does it justify the prohibitionist outcome now being pushed.
The same bill creates a 365 day window before enforcement begins. This grace period should be used to develop a regulatory pathway for hemp derived cannabinoids that reflects modern science rather than prohibition era thinking.
The rest of this counter argument explains why.
1. Hemp is a commodity crop, and the ban ignores that fundamental fact
Hemp is federally defined as an agricultural commodity. Its derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers were intentionally included in the 2018 Farm Bill. Hemp fits within the same industrial, nutritional, and biochemical landscape as corn, soy, wheat, potatoes, sugarcane, and other major crops.
Treating hemp derivatives as inherently illegitimate contradicts the very definition Congress enacted and contradicts how every other commodity crop functions in the modern bioeconomy.
2. Hemp must be bifurcated into fiber and grain hemp versus floral and cannabinoid hemp
The hemp plant is not a single industry. It contains three distinct agricultural lanes with different genetics, agronomy, supply chains, and end uses:
Fiber Hemp
- Tall, dense crops
- Low cannabinoid content
- Used for textiles, construction, biocomposites, insulation, and industrial materials
Grain Hemp
- Grown for seed, protein, food, feed, and oil
- Minimal cannabinoid expression
Floral and Cannabinoid Hemp
- Grown for CBD, CBG, other naturally occurring cannabinoids, and flower
- Requires lower density, specialized harvesting, and extraction
The industry has long requested a federal regulatory model that regulates each category according to its end use. Modernized crop policy would remove THC field limits for fiber and grain hemp and regulate cannabinoid hemp with safety standards, testing, labeling, and potency controls.
The new hemp ban ignores this framework and applies a prohibitionist lens to a structure that requires nuance.
3. Decades of cannabis prohibition created the conditions being blamed on hemp
The emergence of hemp derived cannabinoids is not solely the result of irresponsible actors, even though some reckless entrepreneurs have contributed to confusion and inconsistent product quality. The larger issue is that the United States prohibited cannabis for generations, created fragmented and highly variable state cannabis markets, and refused to build a federal regulatory system for cannabinoids. These gaps opened the door for both legitimate innovation and problematic products, and they explain why the market looks the way it does today.
The consequences include:
- No FDA pathway for CBD, CBG and other naturally occurring cannabinoids
- No harmonized national standards
- A cannabis market that is legal in some states and illegal at the federal level
- A regulatory vacuum that allowed low quality operators to fill the gap
- A confusing and conflicting framework that mislabels hemp as the cause rather than the victim of a broken system
Sabet’s argument fails to acknowledge that the government created the conditions he now blames on the hemp sector.
4. FDA inaction is a major driver of the current market problems
The FDA has publicly stated for years that CBD needs a regulatory pathway. Yet the agency refused to act or establish the same type of standards that exist for every other dietary ingredient. This stalled action created:
- Consumer confusion
- Unsafe and mislabeled products
- State-by-state improvisation
- An unregulated national cannabinoid market
- Public health issues that could have been prevented with proper oversight
The FDA could have prevented most of the problems Sabet cites. Banning derivatives is not a substitute for the regulation that should have been in place from the beginning.
5. Hemp derived cannabinoids follow the same biosynthesis and conversion pathways used across all commodity crop industries
Sabet portrays hemp conversions as unnatural or synthetic, but that position is scientifically incorrect. Every major agricultural commodity undergoes processing, conversion, fermentation, and catalysis to create ingredients that do not exist in their final commercial form inside the plant.
Here are some examples.
Corn
- Converted into glucose, sorbitol, citric acid, lactic acid, ethanol, and PLA plastics
- Ethanol is an intoxicating compound created through fermentation, yet it is fully regulated and accepted
Wheat
- Fermented into beer, spirits, amino acids, vitamins, and industrial enzymes
- Alcohol derived from wheat is intoxicating, but no one calls for banning wheat because of its ethanol potential
Potatoes
- Used to create vodka, citric acid intermediates, starch polymers, and bioplastics
- The intoxicating potential of potato based alcohol is regulated, not prohibited
Sugarcane and Sugar Beet
- Used to create rum, distilled spirits, organic acids, sweeteners, and entire biosynthesis industries
Soy
- Converted into polyols, epoxidized oils, coatings, foams, lubricants, and surfactants
In each case, society accepts that crops can be fermented or chemically converted into intoxicating alcohol products. The existence of alcohol is not used as justification to ban corn, wheat, potatoes, or sugarcane. Instead, those alcoholic end products are regulated through standards, age controls, and manufacturing rules.
Hemp fits into this same biochemical framework. Hemp biomass can also be fermented or converted into alcohol, just like corn, wheat, potatoes, and sugarcane. However, prohibitionists ignore the intoxicating alcohol pathways of industrial hemp while condemning cannabinoid pathways that follow the same category of industrial science.
CBD derived cannabinoids are created through the same type of organic chemistry used to create vitamin C from glucose, citric acid from sugarcane, erythritol from corn syrup, amino acids from wheat fermentation, and even synthetic caffeine used in beverages.
If the United States accepts every form of crop based biosynthesis, chemical conversion, and alcohol production for other commodities, there is no valid scientific argument to treat hemp derived conversions differently. Regulation should be based on safety and end use, not fear based exceptions applied to one crop alone.
6. Hemp deserves the same industrial opportunities as other crops
Hemp offers unique industrial chemistry value, especially through CBG and hemp seed oil derivatives. These compounds can be converted into:
- Biodegradable polymers
- Resins and coatings
- Adhesives
- Bioplastics
- Specialty chemicals
- Sustainable materials that replace petroleum inputs
A blanket ban blocks these pathways, places hemp at a systemic disadvantage, and deprives the bioeconomy of renewable feedstocks that are aligned with national sustainability goals.
7. A real solution requires federal cannabis descheduling and end use regulation
The correct approach to cannabinoids is clear:
- Deschedule cannabis at the federal level
- Create unified national standards
- Regulate cannabinoids based on end use, not THC percentages in a plant
- Eliminate the arbitrary 0.3 percent threshold
- Establish testing, labeling, GMP, and potency rules
- Treat hemp derivatives the same way we treat all crop based derivatives
This is how modern regulatory systems operate. It is how public health is protected. It is also what industry, scientists, and consumers have been requesting for years.
Conclusion
Kevin Sabet celebrates a policy that was pushed through a government funding bill without transparency or public debate. Newsweek is waffling to publish a counter argument. And policymakers inserted a hemp ban of 90-95% of the current economic hemp marketplace into unrelated legislation in a way that forced lawmakers to accept prohibition as the price of keeping the government open.
This is not good governance.
The newly enacted legislation provides a limited window before enforcement begins. The upcoming months should be used to design the regulatory framework that has been absent since 2018. A Fit For Purpose model would regulate fiber and grain hemp strictly as agricultural commodities while establishing potency limits, batch testing, accurate labeling, child-resistant packaging, good manufacturing practices, and age restrictions for cannabinoid hemp.
Long term, the United States would benefit from modernizing cannabis policy entirely. Descheduling cannabis at the federal level and regulating all forms of the plant based on end use, rather than an arbitrary THC percentage, would harmonize state and federal systems while improving public safety and supporting agricultural innovation.
Hemp is a commodity crop rooted in American agriculture and the emerging bioeconomy. Addressing intoxicating cannabinoids is important, but the solution is science based regulation, not prohibition delivered through a budget amendment. The next 340-plus days present a rare chance to build the modern framework hemp has needed for years. Policymakers should use this time wisely.
